This case South Africa presented against Israel was superb. Defense against such facts, will be near impossible.

At least one country in the world is doing something serious against Israel.

Here it is:

Yes he was fantastic, and so was the judge. All of them really.

Nice bit of simple modus tollens in there @ 11:18 in establishing genocidal intent:

"The statements were made by persons in command of the state. They communicated state policy. It is simple. If the statements were not intended, they would not have been made."

One good thing about mobile phones - soldiers keep incriminating themselves

Yes. It's insane to see, but there it is. And they will keep saying insane things.

And likely total silence from the mainstream media... especially in the US. Or just a sidenote.

For example (just now) from CNN:

While South Africa outlined its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, here are some other developments happening in Gaza and the wider region as Israel continues its war against Hamas.

-Relatives of Israeli hostages gather near Gaza to send messages:

-Israel claims to have thwarted "terrorist cell":

For example any links to here this opening statement above, at least I don't find from CNN.

Yet what is told is the response from Israel:

Israel has rejected South Africa’s claims and application to the world court, saying through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs that South Africa “is calling for the destruction of the State of Israel, and that its “claim lacks both a factual and a legal basis.”

Sure, what else are they going to say? Well, they did say South Africa was the legal extension of Hamas.

But it's all pathetic, having no defense, they hurl insults, which is what happens when your arguments (or rather, propaganda) no longer work.

Yeah so what does this world look like? Prior to and after Trump, you essentially got the gist of an American democratic society. You have post Ww2 Western Europe. It’s liberal democracy that tends towards consumerism but has the freedoms not to if one chooses. Countries pursue self interest for resources and trade and using their monetary policy. That’s a given. I don’t need secret cabal-style “oh no!” documents to prove what’s obvious about corporations pursuing their goals for profit. But besides these not so interesting “revelations” that general anti-globalist Leftist ideas proffer, what is this counter Iran’s end goal vision is that they are countering? I don’t need Islamic jihadism to tell me free trade can cause trade imbalances. So again, what are they offering? Why perpetual violence disruptions as policy? What is the end goal of not to simply maintain violence? I guess it redirects attention away from them for their own citizens. It gives them a show of power in the region. But power usually is for a goal. Economic, ideological, etc. it’s usually not simply that one has the power to display a show of power because it always begs the question, “for what purpose”? Simply showing you can cause violence in a region for its own sake makes no sense other than one wants to cause chaos for its own sake. — schopenhauer1

@ssu well?

But it's all pathetic, having no defense, they hurl insults, which is what happens when your arguments (or rather, propaganda) no longer work. — Manuel

Yet still it's working: the Ivy League presidents resign, the allies of the US are mute as they don't want to oppose such a dear issue for the Superpower.

Yet this aggressive counterattack works only for some time, actually.

You can cow the media to silence by hurling accusations of anti-semitism and racism, but that goes only so far. Ignorance too goes only so far too. Yet fear isn't a way to control people for long.

Because finally, and unfortunately, you will get the American politician that doesn't praise AIPAC or Israel. Who simply won't care about it. And why I say this is unfortunate is because then it's going to be real field day for the real anti-semites.

Israel's hope is that there comes another issue which takes the attention away.

Because finally, and unfortunately, you will get the American politician that doesn't praise AIPAC or Israel. Who simply won't care about it. And why I say this is unfortunate is because then it's going to be real field day for the real anti-semites.

Israel's hope is that there comes another issue which takes the attention away. — ssu

Standard issue so far, but as you indicate, it's becoming less effective. You can only continue this mass butchery for so long, people see the pictures and it just becomes impossible to defend.

I think they are hoping that Lebanon will eventually lose its patience, then Gaza can be forgotten for a bit. Probably not helped by the issue that Netanyahu may end up going to prison for unrelated issues.

War is an excellent motivator for many politicians.

Why perpetual violence disruptions as policy? What is the end goal of not to simply maintain violence? — schopenhauer1

Do you have trouble looking from their viewpoint on the whole issue?

Schops, how would you feel if the US politicians would argue that your country is an existential threat for the US? The Iranians can quite easily make the statement to others and especially to themselves that the US is out to get them. Heck, they can just take a book by Noam Chomsky and start reading out loud from it. Starting with Operation Ajax, if not even earlier. And they can see themselves being in just as a perilous situation facing imminent attack from hostile foreigners as one other country that I won't mention.

But this is the Middle East and both sides see themselves having the need to defend themselves. As I've pointed out, the most lethal thing for a politician in that region is to try to make peace.

To make this more clear, of the Iranian attitudes toward this, just listen to the supreme leader of Iran on the subject on why the chant "Death to America", from some years ago:

Standard issue so far, but as you indicate, it's becoming less effective. You can only continue this mass butchery for so long, people see the pictures and it just becomes impossible to defend.

I think they are hoping that Lebanon will eventually lose its patience, then Gaza can be forgotten for a bit. Probably not helped by the issue that Netanyahu may end up going to prison for unrelated issues.

War is an excellent motivator for many politicians. — Manuel

Lebanon cannot do anything, I assume you are talking about Hezbollah. Two different actors, actually, even if in the same country.

One thing is that the Houthis could have success in the Bab el Mandeb missile shootout. One American merchant vessel sunk and I think it wouldn't be just me and @Tzeentch talking about the ongoing naval battle there.

Or then you have a terrorist attack either in the US or Europe, to which Netanyahu can give a "See I told you!" response.

Or people simply get numb. Just as they did with the war in Ukraine. That's the most likely scenario.

I mean yes, technically Hezbollah. But remember Lebanon offered to remove Hezbollah from the border on condition that Israel stop its bombing campaign.

The reply was a murder of a Hamas leader in Beirut.

However, Hezbollah have been extremely restrained (given what they could do), because they know that if they go all in, Lebanon will be in ruins.

But there's the issue that if Israel keeps escalating inside Beirut, then the whole country may explode. And by then it would be beyond Hezbollah, even though they would be the single biggest actor inside Lebanon.

Sure, the Houthis have replied and are being quite effective. Are for numb, it's always a possibility. It's just not sustainable to maintain the same level of emotional attachment for a prolonged period - or at least, many people (me included) find it hard to do.

But the Gaza situation is just so awful, that I still think anything could happen, in terms of things blowing up. If Israel were rational, they would just call it a "victory" and just stop the damn thing.

Heck, they can just take a book by Noam Chomsky — ssu

Yeah, he's known for presenting unbiased non-leftist view of things :roll:.

Starting with Operation Ajax, if not even earlier. And they can see themselves being in just as a perilous situation facing imminent attack from hostile foreigners as one other country that I won't mention. — ssu

And here we are again, you simply fell into the trope I already pointed out and yet you did anyways here:

Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? The only thing I see people pointing to was 1953 Mossadegh as reasons why this isn't the case. I think that is a weak argument for why other choices aren't even strongly a reality. Tunisia I guess is a moderate success, no? — schopenhauer1

That is to say, interference didn't prevent them from going the way of Tunisia in 1979. But that would work against general leftism anti-Western ideology. Cut your nose to spite your face. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.. Same thing heaped on US foreign policy applies to the former Soviet Union / Russia and general anti-Western Leftism (quote some more Chomsky for this kind of argument). That is to say, all the things that one would blame on the West, can be accused of anti-Westerners in a converse argument. All the things that are blamed an external force can be blamed on internal failings in a converse argument.

But this is the Middle East and both sides see themselves having the need to defend themselves. As I've pointed out, the most lethal thing for a politician in that region is to try to make peace. — ssu

Yes, this it seems, we agree with. I will just bring up the fact that in the Israeli case, they generally wanted to be left alone prior to 1967 and then 1973. Yet NO ONE I have seen in these debates acknowledges that Israel now has the West Bank and Gaza because Jordan and Egypt and the other countries wanted to ATTACK Israel and blow it off the map. I disagree with how the settler movement happened. However, I understand only one part of the West Bank strategy: That KNOWING that the countries and groups want your dissolution and/or obliteration, they felt that the hill country in the West Bank was strategic to control on top of the well known fact that having a KNOWN hostile enemy on your borders with only 16 miles between Gaza and the West Bank, where the country could be cut in half.

So with security in mind, Israelis negotiated with the KNOWN hostile neighbors to have 95% of what they wanted with secure borders and it failed each time. As you said, leaders are afraid to make peace deals in that region. It's not in their mortal interest, for sure.

And now currently, just curious. What if there were calls to return the hostages? That would be the minimal approach to giving Israel the onus of stopping the war. What if they did the maximal thing and offered to hand themselves in because they care about their citizens and don't want the destruction to continue? Could that be an option? But the answer to this is telling, because besides the knee-jerk reaction to the other side, it implies that they shouldn't do that. So you will make the claim it won't do anything (which is most likely false), and then imply that they shouldn't (taking a side).

A more than just "symbolic" appeal for justice by ICJ indicting the apartheid, settler-colonial State of Israel of deliberately committing Crimes Against Humanity ...

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/11/south-africa-accuses-israel-of-genocide-gaza-the-hague-international-court-of-justice

As of today 11Jan24, it's estimated that over 23,000 dead Palestinian mostly women, children & elderly noncombatants in Gaza have been mass-murdered by the US-supported & armed IDF in disproportionate retaliation for Hamas' terrorist attack of 7Oct23 since then.

You're a biased leftist. I just pointed that out so I don't have to rub my two braincells together anymore and worry about Gaza.

↪180 Proof You're a biased leftist. — Benkei

And there's no shame in my leftist game! :smirk:

disproportionate retaliation — 180 Proof

Perhaps you specified in an earlier post what a proportionate retaliation would be.

I don't know what it would be, but it seems like killing 23,000 people; destroying at least 60% of the housing for 2 million people, busting up the infrastructure required in a city, destroying the hospital and health care system (such as it was), just wide-spread wrecking everywhere in the strip--would all add up to more than a sufficient retaliation.

Killing off the current Hamas personnel is another objective apparently. Netanyahu says it will take a year of fighting, bombing (I would think), preventing all but minimal relief for the civilians, and the like. Granting that they could achieve this goal, the severely aggrieved Palestinian civilians are likely to welcome new fighters (Hamas or something else), rendering the whole retaliation moot.

Hamas killed 1,200 Israelis and kidnapped c225. On the other hand, in retaliation, Israel has so far killed 23,000+ Palestinians and displaced c2 million more, and continues this onslaught in Gaza. That seems disproportionate to me. :mask:

..and i don't think any amount of massaging the context can obfuscate this. It seems patent.

So does Israel get to kill 1200 palestinians then and rape some palestinian women? would that be fair? or does it mean Israel gets to kill 1200 hamas members but no more? but what about those who ordered the massacre, you know, the government in charge? which has vowed to do 10/7 again and again?

1200
23,000.

Read those over, and over, and over until you have something less strawman to say :)

23,000 includes Hamas dead.

2400 Americans died in Pearl Harbor. Yet we invaded and went on to kill hundreds of thousands if not a million or so Japanese. Was that also unfair? Do we only get to kill 2400 of them?

That's another strawman, and an unrelated example. No one, at all, has even mentioned teh American involvement in WWII.

1200
23,000

Don't pretend this is somehow 'going easy' on Hamas. This is way beyond Hamas now. No one in their right mind defends them (and the only ones i've ever seen do it can't even articulate who they are)

...So proportionality applies only to Israel and not the US in 1941? Why do you apply this principle so selectively?

Hamas aims to eliminate Israel/Jews; Israel aims to eliminate Hamas. Perfectly proportional. In the long run it works out better for the Palestinians who will no longer be oppressed by Hamas. Call it liberation.

...So proportionality applies only to Israel and not the US in 1941? Why do you apply this principle so selectively? — BitconnectCarlos

How much straw can a straw man straw.

Hamas aims to eliminate Israel/Jews; Israel aims to eliminate Hamas. Perfectly proportional. In the long run it works out better for the Palestinians who will no longer be oppressed by Hamas. Call it liberation. — BitconnectCarlos

You must be out of your mind.

Why is only Israel bound by proportionality? Your position isn't consistent.

If you can quote where i've said that, I'd be happy to answer.

As it is, I'm not a strawfan.